Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Venezuela has agreed to sell heating oil at discount prices in low-income communities in Chicago, New York and Boston.

Venezuela's president has decided to expand his Oil-for-the-Poor program and sell cheap oil to the No. 1 superpower of the world. The Houston-based petroleum company CITGO, wholly owned by Venezuela, will begin the program in Boston. Up to 12 million gallons of heating oil will be offered at a bargain price, representing $10 million in savings for locals, according to CITGO. "With this initiative, CITGO is showing its commitment to the U.S. marketplace and to communities where we have a presence," said CITGO president CEO Felix Rodriguez in a prepared statement. "As good corporate citizens, we are making an effort to help those in need."

Chavez thumbed his nose at the Bush administration's poor handling of aid to New Orleans residents, all the while offering to reroute oil tankers to Louisiana since many refineries along the Gulf Coast had been shutdown after back-to-back hurricanes.

More recently, Chavez joined an anti-Bush rally in Argentina during a Latin American summit. As winter grips the United States, Chavez has pursued his pledge to help America's poor. He had suggested using the windfall from record oil prices during the United Nations plenary session in late September. Venezuela already doles out cheap oil to a dozen Caribbean countries, including Cuba.

Turns out he's going ahead with his plans. No specifics have been given but CITGO has brokered deals with state representatives and local nonprofit organizations to target the neediest families and schools.

"My constituents are facing some of the highest energy bills in recent history, even as oil companies are reporting the largest profits in recent memory," said Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., in a prepared statement. Serrano said CITGO would provide 8 million gallons of home heating oil below cost the week after Thanksgiving to nonprofit housing providers in the Bronx.

Meanwhile, U.S. oil companies haven't responded to lawmakers' request to share the wealth and donate some of their profits to the poor to cover higher heating bills.

They make this guy look like a model humanitarian. He criticized Pres. Bush on Katrina, and attended an anti-Bush rally. Doesn't everybody do that? And now he wants to help the poor! Of course, for the real story of Hugo Chavez, you have to look at this LOVE AMERICA FIRST post, and click on all the links there. Hat tip to Rosemary, for being the first blog I thought to reference in refuting this absurd AP story (entire story). Notice the cities this program is starting up in. All liberal/Democrat strongholds, though it's hard to fault them for doing what they can for their poorest constituents. Still, Chavez is dealing arms with Iran, and hosted its vile President Ahmadinejad recently. I'd prefer to find another way to do this than give Chavez such good PR. I don't like dealing with the vile Saudis either, but that's for another post.

The idea of a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq has been built into the entire project from day one. It was on that understanding that the Iraqi people chose not to fight for Saddam, thus allowing the coalition to win a rapid and easy military victory. That fact created a moral contract between the people of Iraq and the US-led coalition as co-liberators of the country. The Iraqi people’s part of the bargain was not to prevent the dismantling of the Ba’athist machinery of repression and war and to welcome the chance to build a new political system. The coalition’s part of the bargain was to protect Iraq against its internal and external enemies until it was strong enough to look after itself.

In the general election and the constitutional referendum held this year, the people of Iraq formally endorsed that contract. The coalition, for its part, must continue to honour that contract until new Iraq feels strong enough to bid farewell to its liberators.

It would be nice if this was the accepted wisdom, and the Dems in Congress had not let politics go beyond "the water's edge", so to speak. This is the real comparison to Vietnam, where domestic politics took control of international security policy, ie; the war. We can't let that happen again. Read Mr. Taheri's entire piece, and think about it.

The riots in France have shocked poor Johnny Depp. "It's insane, that setting cars on fire is the new strike," says Johnny. "I went there to live because it seemed so simple. Now it's anything but. I don't know how they'll recover from this."...Remember when you said the United States was a stupid, aggressive puppy and you wouldn't live here until the political climate changed. Has France become a big nasty poodle that can hurt little Johnny now also?

Read the whole thing for more of Bob's choice comments to Mr. Depp, which I wholeheartedly endorse.

Next, the NY DAILY SNOOZE has this story about everyone's favorite anti-semetic pedophile:

JACKO'S SICKO JEWISH RANTMichael Jackson picked a familiar target to blame for his mounting money problems - the Jews. In phone messages obtained by ABC News, the apparently prejudiced pop star likens them to "leeches" and claims they conspired to leave him "penniless.""They suck...they're like leeches...I'm so tired of it," Jackson tells former adviser Dieter Wiesner in one of them. "The Jews do it on purpose."Jackson had to apologize to Jewish groups a decade ago after he included lyrics like "Jew me/Sue me/Everybody do me/Kick me/Kike me" on the song "They Don't Care About Us."Jackson, who relocated to Bahrain after he was acquitted of child molesting charges, did not respond to the revelations.

Why should he? It's a win-win for him; bash the Jews, and an Arab nation will hide his sick habits in it's closed society.

The last example is from a movie review by Jack Matthews, also from the SNOOZE:

It would be nice to report that Stephen Gaghan's "Syriana" is a clearheaded account of the modern military- oil industry complex that will answer all your questions about U.S. foreign policy and our various intrigues in the Middle East. It would also be nice if I could explain E=mc².

This type of thinking is typical of liberal Hollywood sycophants. He looks to a Hollywood movie to answer his questions about the real world. How long until Congress calls George Clooney to testify before them as an expert on "the modern military- oil industry complex"?He finishes his review with this comment:

Syriana, by the way, is a Washington think-tank word that refers to the notion that the U.S. can remake nation states in our own image. How's that working out?

Again, is this something he learned from the movie? The implication is that this is what we are trying to do in Iraq. It's pretty clear that Mr. Matthews is a typical, knee-jerk liberal, who is in lockstep with the politics of those screwy Hollywood types he so adores.

Wednesday, November 23, 2005

STOP THE ACLU is more than just a website, or an organization. It is a state of mind, something that should be accepted wisdom for every man and woman in America. Living in New York, scant miles from the ACLU's national headquarters, I feel the need to wear a public statement of opposition to this left-wing abomination. I work in the darkest depths of Mordor (metaphorically), and could bring the light of reason and righteousness to my fellow NYers. If not that, I can piss a bunch of psycho-liberals off on a regular basis, which this shirt will certainly do. Either way, it's a win-win. I get to show off my support for STOP THE ACLU, and they get free promotion of their organization in an area that is still conservative, though losing ground to the liberals. It will also be appreciated by my friends on the Lynbrook, Freeport, and NYC Police Departments, who will envy me, and perhaps buy their own shirts, since they make so much more money than me. My last reason is that Christmas is coming soon, and I don't have too many prospects for good gifts. My fiance and her family have good intentions, but none of them would think of a STOP THE ACLU T-shirt as a Christmas present. So Jay, Ian, and Mystery Judge, please be my secret Santa, and give me the free shirt! If I get it, there'll be alot of Thanks-giving from LEAVWORLD!linked at Early Christmas Presents on STOP THE ACLU

With all of the fuss over a freshman Republican congresswoman's "coward" remarks on the House floor last week, I have to give a "hat tip" to Gwen Ifill of "Washington Week In Review" (on PBS) for catching this overlooked tidbit:

IFILL: I have to share my favorite line in all of this hostile debate that's been going on on the Hill. It involved young Adam Putnam, congressman, Florida...Ms. SEABROOK: Thirty-one years old.IFILL: ...31 years old, redhead, which we'll explain why that matters, and Congressman Marion Berry from Arkansas who called him a, quote, "howdy-doody looking Nimrod" at some point.Ms. SEABROOK: It was a fun quote.IFILL: Did he have to withdraw that? It seems like he crossed all the lines.Ms. SEABROOK: There was an immediate point of order on the floor against him.IFILL: I'll bet there was. He didn't--the howdy-doody part was fine. The Nimrod part, no. No.

So Gwen has no problem with dissin' red haired guys with freckles. Well, let me tell Ms. Ifill something. I went through years of hell as a teenager with that nickname. Us guys with red hair and freckles hate being called "howdy doody" more than "nimrod", trust me. Such a bastion of liberal sensitivity as yourself surely must realize how offensively your comments could be construed. Not by me, of course. My nickname actually changed to Howard J. Doolittle (or just Howard) before I graduated high school, at least with the coolest kids. But in defense of Rep. Putnam, and "howdy doodys" everywhere, I'm going to call Rep. Berry a "fat old bastard with green teeth". (SEE PICTURE BELOW-from his website)

PS: I'm just pulling Ms. Ifill's leg, of course. There is a deeper point about name-calling, which is something I both did and received as a kid. I wouldn't really give a crap about it, except that the libs want to make it an issue, and "over-sensitize" everybody with PC - BS, especially today's kids.I just hope that the right to VERBALLY offend will not be further limited by our fine congress, who can't help but act like name-calling kids themselves.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

We all know, even expect the ACLU to defend terrorists in the name of their twisted vision of civil rights. What I don't think many know, and much fewer would expect, is that many of America's largest corporate law firms are donating their services to defend Gitmo detainees. Deroy Murdock has a new piece out today outlining the firms involved, and their corporate clients. Some excerpts:

Most members of the self-styled Guantanamo Bay Bar Association are among America’s top "white shoe" corporate lawyers, but they act with all the misguided fervor and poor judgment of wild-haired, sandal-wearing radicals.Their pro bono services - mainly filing federal habeas corpus petitions to free detainees from military custody - are worth perhaps $300 per hour, September’s American Lawyer estimated. This doesn’t cost detainees a dime. By paying their own bills, these firms’ Fortune 500 clients indirectly subsidize legal aid and comfort to suspected Islamic fascists.As researcher Marco DeSena and I discovered, Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw’s 1,300 lawyers will generate $911 million this year, the American Lawyer forecasts. Its clients include Caterpillar, Whirlpool and UAL Corp., the parent company of United Airlines. United jets smashed into the World Trade Center and a field in Shanksville, Pa., on 9/11."’Social Justice’ is our own construct," the firm explains. "We consider this to be our ’cutting edge’ work." This includes John Does 1-570 v. George W. Bush, essentially a class-action lawsuit involving every enemy combatant at Gitmo not already suing the president for release during wartime.Blank Rome advises RJ Reynolds, Sunoco and Boeing, manufacturer of all four passenger jets that al Qaeda weaponized on 9-11. On track for $247.5 million in 2005 revenues, Blank Rome filed Khaled Abd Elgabar Mohammed Othman et al. v. George W. Bush, et al. in federal court in Washington on Oct. 25 on behalf of a Yemeni enemy combatant.The 300 "professionals" at Los Angeles-based Manatt, Phelps & Phillips counsel Alaska Airlines, Anschutz Entertainment, Harley-Davidson, Mattel and Transport for London, the British agency that runs the London Underground, which al Qaeda bombed July 7, killing 52 commuters. On Oct. 24, Manatt sued President Bush in federal court on behalf of suspected Islamic extremist Adbulkadar Abdulkhalik Dad.Shearman & Sterling ($775 million estimated 2005 gross) has some 1,000 attorneys serving Deere & Co., Delphi, Ford, Morgan Stanley, PG&E and others. Partner Thomas Wilner, lead attorney for 12 Kuwaiti enemy combatants, wants Uncle Sam to compensate detainees for time at Guantanamo. "It would be very nice if they paid the people released at least as much as they paid the bounty hunters for capturing them," Wilner said in the Sept. 13, 2004, Legal Times.

Perhaps someone out there can start an email campaign to the companies that use these law firms, and draw their attention to what they are subsidizing. Read the whole article, and try not to wretch. Then start emailing it to everyone you know that will send it to these corporations. I haven't looked any of their addresses up yet, but it shouldn't be too hard, except picking the right person to send it to at each company. Anyone with experience doing that should pick this idea up and run with it. I'm just putting in my two cents on Mr. Murdock's column.Linked at STOP The ACLU - I am HiJacking This Site!!!!! Open Trackbacks!

Saturday, November 19, 2005

With our president down in the polls, I thought I'd publish a totally vulgar and unpolished piece of art I produced on Jan. 21, 2003. This is one of three works (that get worse progressively) titled the WARRIOR W sketches. Though I am no political cartoonist, this particular piece has a current resonance. Substitute Harry Reid for Tom Daschle, and you have an accurate picture of today's domestic political situation. If I were to sketch an updated version, British PM Tony Blair would be at the forefront, with actual wounds from the terrorist beasts. I stand by my portrayal of "Slick Willy" as someone to be slapped aside, and Hillary as a huge viper rising in the background. Interpret it for yourself, and go look at the original posting of all three of these frankly abhorrent (on an artistic level) sketches, as well as the many other finished fantasy art pieces at LEAVART.Crossposted at LOVE AMERICA FIRST.

Friday, November 18, 2005

It's been too long since I've mentioned LOVE AMERICA FIRST here, and even longer since I've contributed anything over there. While I apologize to Rosemary, I want to mention her latest News from Iran 11/17/2005 post. She has a bunch of links to the Regime Change Iran blog, with alot of good info on the Islamic Republic. This is a "must read" for anyone who wants to understand this enemy.

This is the first in a series of occasional posts linking to older posts that are still relevant. I'm doing a kind of "reverse countdown" to my one-year blogiversary, which is Dec. 11th. This one was originally titled OCCUPATION 1945 & 2005: SAME PROBLEMS, and it highlights some NY Times headlines from 1945. I just noticed that I didn't credit Rush Limbaugh for those. I suppose I didn't want to be seen as repeating someone else's talking points, but I've learned that there's no shame in that, if you agree with them. Further, I've learned that it is important to cite the source when possible, though I still don't always give direct links. Anyway, I'll go back and fix that (with apologies to RUSH), and it's a nice short post, so go read it!

Thursday, November 17, 2005

Since I've barely had time to blog lately, I would like to direct you to go read ACLU’s War Against National Security, this Thursday's STOP The ACLU Blogburst. Jay details a long list of ways that this organization is undermining the war on terror, as well as the ways our tax dollars subsidize it. A powerful post, which was too good to try to edit for crossposting here.

Wednesday's NY Post had a story about C. Virginia Fields, the Manhattan borough president and failed mayoral primary candidate. It seems that she has been "tapped as an urban expert to assist in rebuilding New Orleans" by Mayor Ray Nagin, for his Bring Back New Orleans Commission. She will be "part of a nation-wide group of volunteers" working "to develop strategies to get the Big Easy back on its feet." Big Mistake.

The Post quotes Fields: "My particular field of expertise is in government efficiency." If she brings N.Y. style efficiency to N.O, the place will never get rebuilt! Think ground zero, which is in her borough. If she is representative of the people Mayor Nagin is selecting, this commission is going nowhere.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

An internal report on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting released Tuesday found that former chairman Kenneth Tomlinson used "political tests" to recruit a new board president and was inappropriately involved in the creation of a program on PBS. Following a background report, a Washington Post reporter provides an update.

JEFFREY BROWN: The release today of a report by the agency's inspector general comes amid a tumultuous year at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. CPB is a nonprofit private organization established by Congress in 1967. It helps fund PBS and National Public Radio as well as individual programs, including the NewsHour.

Today's report examined actions by Kenneth Tomlinson, who served as CPB chairman until September. Tomlinson had remained on the CPB board, but resigned earlier this month after objecting to the preliminary findings of the inspector general's report.

As chairman, he'd been vocal in alleging liberal bias in public broadcasting and helped bring a new conservative-oriented program, the Journal Editorial Report, to PBS. Today's report criticized part of his involvement in that process.

OK, so let me get this straight: An open conservative, who is critical of liberal bias at PBS, becomes head of the CPB. His efforts to correct that bias are then scrutinized publicly to an unprecedented degree. I have to play "joe six-pack" here, and say that I never understood the function or utility of the CPB before the controversy over Mr. Tomlinson's appointment, much less knew it's inner workings. It was just another sponsor, along with "viewers like you".

I've postedrepeatedly about the liberal bias at PBS, and was happy to see it addressed by the CPB under Mr. Tomlinson. However, this report makes it sound as if Tomlinson was getting marching orders from the White House (of course) to air conservative programming on PBS. It would have been helpful if the NewsHour had a reporter from the Washington Times, or perhaps the WSJ itself, as well. One Washington Post reporter as an interview subject just doesn't cut it in a story about media bias, public or not.

The NewsHour makes a big point that this was about process; that Mr. Tomlinson went about things the wrong way. The fact is that CPB has obviously had influence over PBS programming for much longer than Mr. Tomlinson was at the helm, but nothing like this has ever been looked into before in the MSM or on PBS, with few exceptions (Bill Moyers did say he was being "persecuted" around the time he quit his NOW program). This basically smacks of political payback for Moyers, and Tomlinson was the unfortunate target.

This story actually "peaked" back in the Spring, after Moyers quit NOW, saying "It's been in the news this week, including reports of more attacks on a single journalist -- yours truly -- by the right-wing media and their allies at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.", as I mention here. The liberals' goal was achieved when Mr. Tomlinon resigned, to minimum media fanfare, and this current "CPB Report" story wasn't on any other news outlets I watched last night. This is a huge culture-war story, and it is important to watch how PBS and the NewsHour handle it. So far, they're failing miserably. Or succeeding, depending on one's point of view. I have an obligation to admit I am a fan of PBS, even if they tick me off alot. They occasionally startle me with great programs, though not often enough. Ken Tomlinson's CPB had a good impact on PBS, and hopefully his missteps can serve as a strategy to open government. If Pres. Bush can get more conservatives put into some of these screwed-up bureaucracies, perhaps more liberals will drop dimes on (-expose) the underlying corrupt power structures they (liberals) have developed over the decades (Think Joe Wilson outing a CIA plot against the President's Iraq policy). Could this be why the Administration has embraced the Dept. of Education, as well as putting committed reformers in at State and the CIA? One can only hope they won't be sacrificial lambs to the liberal bureaucrats, as Mr. Tomlinson was. The battle is joined, and I fight for PBS to represent a broader spectrum of views, as well as a broader reform of other liberal-infested bureaucracies.

Friday, November 11, 2005

I AM BAD. I can't seem to put out my anti-ACLU rants on the proper day, which is Thursday. Hell, I can't even copy and paste up the great, ready-made blogbursts that STOP The ACLU posts every Thursday! I hope that my spotty record doesn't reflect badly on my support for them.

A quick excerpt from Thursday's PBS News Hour, featuring the non-mentioning of one side of a debate as liberal, courtesy of moderator Jeffrey Brown:

We look at the debate over spending priorities now with Brian Riedl, lead budget analyst at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative public policy institute, and Deborah Weinstein, executive director of the Coalition on Human Needs, a consortium of advocacy groups working on issues affecting the poor. Welcome to both of you.

The debate is framed as conservatives vs. the poor, right off the bat.

THAT IS LIBERAL BIAS, WHETHER INTENTIONAL OR NOT.

Doesn't the Heritage Foundation also work on "issues affecting the poor?" Won't the agenda of the Coalition of Human Needs affect all of society, not just the poor? Just some thoughts.

The latest installment of the PBS Nova program, "Hitler's Sunken Secret," tells the story of a team of underwater archaeologists who retrieve barrels of deuterium, or heavy water, that were on a boat (the Hydro) sunk by the Norwegian resistance during WWII. It's a fascinating story, which ends up solving the mystery of whether it was a dummy shipment or not.. Heavy water is a vital component of a nuclear reactor, though harmless itself.

They make some (not so) subtle parallels to modern situations from the war on terror. I'm usually tough on PBS about liberal bias, and indeed I see much here. At the same time, they throw in some statements that sound very hawkish, which is unusual for Nova, and PBS. After reading the transcript, I think they've just gotten slicker at crafting their anti-war message. I thought I'd just publish the transcript of last few minutes below (the first paragraph is an excerpt from earlier in the show).

I wonder if this was filmed before or after the actual London train bombings, but one thing is certain: the producers had to know that comparing the heroic Norwegian operation to a terrorist attack would be inflammatory (if not defamatory), and could have removed the quote. The second obvious reference to the modern war on terror is the fruitless search for WMD in Germany, which turned up one non-functioning nuclear reactor. Of course, as is the case today, bad intel was to blame. This, and more, is worth further analysis, but read on, and analyze it for yourself. I recommend seeing the show, or reading the entire transcript.

NARRATOR: Eventually, in 1944, members of the resistance learned that the entire production plant and 15 tons of partially purified heavy water were to be shipped to Germany. They passed the information on to London asking what they were to do

PER DAHL: The Germans would have needed a total of about five tons of heavy water to get a heavy water reactor, nuclear reactor, running. The list here informs us, essentially, that about half a ton of heavy water was being transported to Germany.

NARRATOR: The Hydro was carrying far too little heavy water for even one reactor, let alone the 10 or more that would have been needed to make enough plutonium for a nuclear weapon. So, were the Allies right in their belief that the heavy water was destined for a bomb project? Did the Germans in fact want it for some other purpose?Within a few months of the sinking of the Hydro in 1944, Allied armies were advancing across Europe. Following closely behind the frontline troops was a secret operation, code named Alsos. Its mission was to find the Nazi nuclear weapons program the Allies were sure must exist.For months, Alsos scoured newly-liberated Europe and found nothing. Then, just days before the final German surrender, they came to Haigerloch, a small town in Bavaria. Beneath a church there was a cave, and inside they found the intended destination of the Norwegian heavy water: a makeshift laboratory with a single experimental reactor that German scientists still had not gotten to work.The Nazi nuclear bomb, which had inspired so much fear, turned out to be a mirage. There was no German equivalent of the vast Manhattan Project.The reason, believes historian Mark Walker, can be found in a decision made in early 1942, just at the time when the Allies were also deciding whether to embark on the Manhattan Project.

MARK WALKER: In early 1942, precisely when the Allies are getting concerned about Norwegian heavy water, American officials and German officials make crucial decisions about their nuclear weapons projects. Interestingly, scientists in both countries said the same thing; the scientific results were essentially the same. Scientists in both countries said, it'll take a couple of years, but nuclear weapons are possible. Now, in America it was assumed that the war was going to take a long time: "These weapons will be done before the end of the war, therefore we have to try to make them." In Germany it was assumed that: "If we don't win the war quickly, we will lose; these weapons might be interesting for the future, but they're no help to us now. It would be a waste of energy, money, and time to try to make them."

NARRATOR: So German nuclear research was transferred to civilian control. The Hydro shipment was destined for an experimental reactor project. It was of no military significance, which is why it was only lightly guarded. So it seems that the doubts the Norwegian resistance expressed about the value of sinking the Hydro were justified. Had Allied intelligence known what we know today, they might well have agreed that the shipment was not worth stopping.

PER F. DAHL: I would say that the Allies were not paranoid, as such. Rather, they were surprisingly uninformed about what was going on in Germany in nuclear physics.

DAVE WARK: The German program was very leaky. They were telling journalists in cafes what they were up to, and yet, the Allies don't seem to have made much of an effort to really penetrate this program and learn more about it. I would call that a critical intelligence failure.

NARRATOR: None of this, of course, takes away from the heroism of Knut Lier Hansen and his comrades. They chose to take up arms against a brutal invader at great risk to themselves. They knew their actions would lead to the death of innocent civilians; but the bitter truth is that World War II, like most modern wars, claimed mainly the lives of the innocent.

DAVE WARK: They asked London. London said immediately, "Sink it." And they did what they were told. It would be like asking me to blow up the 8:45 train to London. I'd be absolutely certain there'd be friends, maybe even relatives of mine on that train, but if there's any chance that Hitler's going to get an atomic bomb, what else can you do?

BRETT PHANEUF: I think you have to look at it and get it all straight for once and for all, for everybody, for the history books, and not worry about who might be offended, because it's not about that. It's not about criticizing what they did. I would have done it if I had been given the orders. I like to think that I'd follow the orders.

DAVE WARK: I don't think I would have had the guts to do what they did.

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

As the Mudville Gazette points out, the MSM has been silent about the riots in Denmark. To be honest, I forgot which country it was, even after reading this jihad watch link. (Belgium, Holland, the Netherlands...they all seem to fade into "Small European States") I had to dig to 10/03 to find the link, so it may have quelled down in Denmark (look for updates). Still, it is quite relevant to the French riot story, which is continuing. Latest from the AP on France (kick, kick!):

Images of teenagers from immigrant families pelting riot police with stones and gasoline bombs reminiscent of Palestinian youths attacking Israeli patrols are resonating throughout the Arab world.The Egyptian daily Al-Massaie referred to the riots as "the intefadeh of the poor." Arabic satellite networks have given lead coverage to the mayhem, with regular live reports. Newspapers throughout the region have closely followed the story, calling it a "nightmare" and a "war of the suburbs."Arson attacks, rioting and other unrest have spread from the suburbs to hundreds of cities and towns though acts of violence were down somewhat Monday night from the previous evening.Officials were forced to shut down the southern city of Lyon's subway system after a gasoline bomb exploded in a station, a regional government spokesman said, adding no one was hurt.French historians say the rioting is more widespread and destructive in material terms than the May riots of 1968.

Paul Belien says "Riots have engulfed the entire country and, like the French revolution of 1789, it is contagious: The rebellion is spreading to Muslim areas in neighbouring countries."

American Dinosaur weighs in with a very informative post full of links, with one that compares the French uprising to a potential "Aztlan" uprising, starting in L.A. This one's worth an excerpt, just to see their screwy point of view:

Los Angeles, Alta California, November 7, 2005 - (ACN) French cities are still burning, after 11 nights of rioting, primarily because of the attitude of Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy toward its immigrant and Muslim populations. Sarkozy, with ambitions of becoming France's next president and acting perfectly like the Marquis Evrémonde in the novel "Tale of Two Cities", threw gasoline into the fire when he referred to Muslim and immigrant disaffected youths protesting racism, unemployment and police harassment as "scum". Sarkozy is an Islamophobe and the son of a Hungarian immigrant who had airs of being an aristocrat and of a Jewsih mother. This sort of attitude from French "aristocrats" is precisely what brought about the French Revolution and the storming of the Bastille in 1789.Today, here in Los Angeles, we are already seeing ominous signs of an impending social explosion that will make the French rebellion by Muslim and immigrant youths seem "tame" by comparison. All the ingredients are present including a hostile and racist police as in France.Hat-tip to the American Dinosaur, and read his post, because this is just one excerpt from the many links he uses to support a cogent theory about anti-western ideology.

Finally, some guy with too much time on his hands (or who just writes alot) named Don Surber writes something that is just right for this whole situation: "Oh and while we are at it, toss Chirac in prison. He is the ringleader of a $64 billion oil scam in Iraq. A little justice and accountability by the West would go a long way toward filling the gap." I think the "gap" he's referring to is what he calls Euro-sion, the title of his post. He doesn't exactly describe what he means by this, but it becomes self-evident after reading the links there, which happen to include several of the links in this post. (Check out "WE DON'T BELIEVE IN PUNISHMENT" for my take on this concept.) Hat-tip to you, Mr. Surber, as well. Chirac is a worthy culprit, as well as target of investigation. Let's hope his "immunity" expires soon.

Saturday, November 05, 2005

The suburbs surrounding Paris have become infernos of violence every night, as French police fail to quell the unrest. I hate to say "I told you so", but many pundits predicted something like this happening in France. I don't want to kick the French when they're down (well, maybe a little), but didn't they think they were protecting themselves from this kind of internal strife by opposing the US-led invasion of Iraq? (Come to think of it, didn't Spain get bombed again after they withdrew from the Iraq front?) The question for the French now is how soon will they surrender to the fact that they cannot enforce the law on their own soil? These areas are now like the Palestinian territories, and the French are like the Israelis, "invading" them to pre-empt more violence. How serious is this situation, and why did I see three hours of coverage about the relatively miniscule Argentine protests against Pres. Bush, and maybe ten minutes of reporting about the French Muslim uprising on CNN today?

PS: I don't wish to engage in the schadenfreude that the French have since 9/11, but comparing the composition of the above artwork to my current profile photo, maybe I have. If so, tough crap for them, even if most French people don't have much say in their government's policies. C'est la vie, mes amis!

Thursday, November 03, 2005

I caught a moment of O'Reilly's "most ridiculous item of the day" last night. I don't remember the actual wording, but the NYCLU has a sign at their headquarters reserving the right to search all persons or packages that enter. Pretty funny, considering my last post, and this one. If I had made this up, I would use it to comply with the Meme tags I recieved recently. By the way, apologies to Is It Just Me and Merri Musings (who actually tagged me first) for not complying. My recent PC problems kept me from doing so in a timely manner. Sorry, ladies!

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

"Less than a month after a 21-year-old blew himself up just outside a packed football stadium in Oklahoma, a circuit court judge in Florida has granted the American Civil Liberties Union a surprise victory by issuing a preliminary injunction preventing searches at Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ games."

"Assuming Judge Little continues siding with the ACLU and strikes down searches as unconstitutional, it is a safe bet that the Tampa Sports Authority, which operates the stadium, will appeal."

"Even if the prohibition on pat-downs is somehow upheld, the TSA could follow the lead of the Cincinnati Bengals, which only implemented the new policy after the team agreed to pick up the tab for the increased security—which would arguably make the searches private, and not public, action. Then again, few experts had predicted the ACLU’s suit would prevail."

Few, indeed. Luckily, there are ways around this, as Mr. Mowbray outlines. My point here is to cite another reason to STOP the ACLU. They, and the judges who share their extreme liberal philosophy, are out of control. With their help, one disgruntled fan can successfuly stop a major sporting venue from raising their security procedures, at least for a short time. I wonder how Judge Alito would rule on this one?